Official story of Skripal poisoning has little credibility

The Skripal poisoning narrative began over 3 months ago. Both Yulia Skripal a Russian citizen and her father Sergei Skripal a former Russian double agent were found unconscious on a park bench in Salisbury UK and admitted to Salisbury Hospital on March 4.

The whole case has fallen off the media radar screen. What appears now from time to time are various politicians or officials simply asserting or alluding to the official narrative usually as part of larger narratives showing how evil Russia is. Just reporting what authorities say and making no comment is regarded as objective journalism in the sense you are not expressing opinions.

Recently some sources have provided useful timelines of events and also analyses. One of these these sources is the blog "Disobedient Media" that provides a detailed extensive report of events from before the poisoning up to now. Another source with numerous articles on particular aspects can be found at "the saker". Both sources have numerous links to other articles such as those by blog Moon of Alabama and Craig Murray. The appended video shows an interview with a former BBC reporter who discusses a few of the problems with the official narrative and the pitiful mainstream media response.

Earlier Digital Journal articles on the Skripal poisoning

Digital Journal has earlier published several of my articles dealing with earlier events. The first on March 31st argued that the case against Russia was not even plausible. On April 10th an article showed how everything was kept under wraps when Yulia was released from the hospital.

On May 18 there was an article on Sergei Skripal's release from the hospital but there was no news conference and thus no questions as to what the Skripalès version of events was.

A more recent article on May 25th shows how a supposed interview with Yulia also keeps most everything under wraps as well. It was not actually an interview but a video of Yulia reading off a text in Russian but showed also an English translation. The text probably resulted from negotiation. Surprisingly, she was allowed to say that she hoped eventually to return to Russia. This is an amazing statement from someone who according to the official story has just been subject to an attempt to kill her by Russia. However, she has never been allowed to meet the press and her handlers have kept her away from any communication with relatives, and of course from Russian officials. Yulia conveniently says that she does not want consular help at this time.

What have the Skripals had to say about what happened?

Given that both Skripals have been released from hospital authorities must have interrogated them about what happened on the day of their poisoning. If what the Skripals testified supported the official narrative it would have been immediately broadcast far and wide and offered up as confirming the official version of events.

This has not happened. Instead both Skripals are kept away from the press, relatives, and any communication they have is no doubt monitored and even negotiated. To mimic the official story, the only plausible explanation of events is that the Skripal's testimony does not support the official narrative blaming the Russians.

The official narrative is as full of holes as Swiss cheese

The official narrative is often so meandering and inconsistent as to be risible. The various statements about where the Skripals came into contact with the poison is a good example. Independent journalist, Caitlin Johnstone, sums up the story: “The poison was placed in Yulia Skripal’s suitcase. Actually no, they got that wrong, it was the air vents in their car. Wait, no, that doesn’t work either. Maybe it was administered via weaponized miniature drone! Wait, no, it was the family’s car door handle. Actually, scratch that, it was the front door of the house. Definitely the front door of the house. We’re absolutely sure. Either that or Sergei Skripal’s favorite Russian cereal. They were given 100 grams of Novichok. Wait, no, that’s ridiculous, we retract that. Okay, maybe we have no idea what happened. Oh hey, their pets were completely unaffected by the poison. Let’s incinerate them.”

This is just a brief sampling of objections to the official narrative. Much more in great detail can be found in the two recent sources cited earlier and the many links to relevant articles.

The Skripal case is a prime example of how unsubstantiated accusations can have extremely negative consequences such as the tit-for-tat removal of diplomats from various countries as a result of holding Russia responsible for the poisoning. Yet the mainstream press has voiced little criticism of the official account and helped ensure that criticism is below mainstream media radar. The official narrative is now simply used as given in much political discourse in the mainstream press. What should be fake news has become legitimized.

Previously published in Digital Journal